From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14794 invoked by alias); 10 Jun 2013 16:27:22 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 14783 invoked by uid 89); 10 Jun 2013 16:27:22 -0000 X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-7.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_WL,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.84/v0.84-167-ge50287c) with ESMTP; Mon, 10 Jun 2013 16:27:21 +0000 Received: from int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.24]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r5AGRKVm000478 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 10 Jun 2013 12:27:20 -0400 Received: from [10.3.113.39] (ovpn-113-39.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.39]) by int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r5AGRJwt017721; Mon, 10 Jun 2013 12:27:19 -0400 Message-ID: <51B5FE67.3060703@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 16:27:00 -0000 From: Jason Merrill User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:23.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/23.0a2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Gabriel Dos Reis , Andrew Sutton CC: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: [c++-concepts] code review References: <51B0B0ED.5090508@redhat.com> <51B0F122.6020301@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2013-06/txt/msg00517.txt.bz2 On 06/09/2013 08:49 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: > If you put the function in an unnamed namespace > you would expect GCC to treat is as if it was of internal > linkage for many purposes including automatic inlining, but > it doesn't:-( For example, you lose the "defined but not used > warning", and the "used but not defined" warnings :-(( Indeed, G++ currently only gives those warnings for things declared 'static', but that's trivial to fix, and shouldn't affect other things in the compiler. Jason